ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. 03 of 2011.   

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 17.01.2011

                        Mr. Shahbaz Ali Khan Brohi, Advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Qazi Muhammad Bux, State counsel.

~~~

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J.-           Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, in Crl. Bail Appln. No. 1198/2010, whereby the applicant was declined bail; the applicant has approached this Court seeking bail.

2.                     Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of instant bail application and the prosecution story as stated in the F.I.R, is that on spy information, while patrolling on 12.10.2010, at 11.00 a.m., at various places the police party reached at Plaza Chowk, Shikarpur, where three accused persons, who as per spy information, were gathered with an intention to commit theft at Shahi Bagh, Shikarpur. As per police party, the said accused persons on seeing them took out pistols and started firing at police with an intention to kill them. Exchange of firing continued for about 10 to 15 minutes. During firing police caught hold of one of the accused (present applicant) alongwith T.T pistol, whereas two accused who were identified as Laloo son of Jan Muhammad and Asif son of Sahab escaped from the scene. Investigation was conducted, challan has been submitted and the present applicant is behind the bars since his arrest.

3.                     It is inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant crime at the instance of police, whereas recovery has been foisted. Per learned counsel the alleged incident never took place, whereas no one has received any arm injury inspite of allegation of cross firing between the accused and the police party, nor any damage has been caused to the police mobile. Per learned counsel no article whatsoever has been mentioned, which according to the police was being attempted to be robbed. All the prosecution witnesses are police officials, inspite of the fact that the alleged incident took place in a public place in daylight. Per learned counsel all the allegations contained in the F.I.R, besides being false, either do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., or the ingredients of such allegations are not supported even from the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. Per learned counsel it can at best be termed as the case of ineffective firing, as no injury has been caused. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Mujeeb v. The State (2009 SCMR 448).

4.                     Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail and submitted that since the accused has been nominated in the F.I.R and no enmity between the police and the applicant has been alleged, therefore, bail may not be granted.

5.                     Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. From tentative assessment of record, it appears that case has been registered at the instance of police.  All the prosecution witnesses are police officials.  No reason for non-associating private witness has been mentioned inspite of the fact that the alleged offence took place in day light at public place. No injury whatsoever has been caused to the police officials, nor any damage to the police mobile has been shown. As regards un-licensed pistol, a separate case has been registered. It further appears that application of the alleged offences under the circumstances though remote, however, requires further enquiry and the prosecution story cannot be considered as free from doubt. In view of hereinabove I am of the view that this is case of ineffective firing which requires further enquiry. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Muhammad v. The State (1998 SCMR 455). 

6.                     Accordingly, the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousands), with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, vide short order dated 17.01.2011, and these are the reasons for such short order.

Dated: 20.01.2011.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Judge